Are you making the claim that the white house press secretary only speaks for herself, and not for the administration?
ETA: way ninja’d be airbeck, thought I had refreshed…
Do you find it “highly disturbing and frankly un-American” that the President recently suggested it was inappropriate for NFL players to kneel during the Anthem?
-
This seems unresponsive to my post, and veering off topic. There are other threads to discuss the anthem protests. Any actual answer to what I said in the post you are quoting, or is this all I should expect? Seems like you are trying to set something up with this question…
-
Yes, it is disturbing for the President to tell citizens how they may utilize their freedom of expression. We are the land of the free, or we’re supposed to be anyway. The chief executive picking and choosing what protests are appropriate is itself inappropriate.
Ok, ready for the gotcha, let’s have it
Nah, some peop0le just cry racism whenever they get criticized. The phrase empty barrel is something that makes a lot of noise but has no substance.
Presidents have long made recommendations about what they think is appropriate or inappropriate. Sometimes directly, and sometimes through their press secretaries. Obama did it in 2012 through his press secretary Jay Carney:
This isn’t uncommon. Why is it suddenly shocking when it’s the Trump administration?
One of these days, trump is going to send in marshals to shut down the media outlets that he doesn’t like.
Conservatives on the board will ask us to point to the part of the constitution that forbids that.
Gosh, when you put it that way, it becomes clear that he was only offering a mild “tsk! tsk!” when implying the players are unpatriotic and hate our troops. A typical liberal wild exaggeration! Like when Trump talked about illegal immigrants being murderers, rapists and drug-dealers, doesn’t mean he said they were bad people!
Hey, thanks for clearing that up for us!
Or blatantly lied about. It wasn’t really a legitimate criticism, as he criticized an event that he knowingly fabricated, rather than what actually happened.
Sometimes, when people are lying in order to attack you hard enough that they are willing to sacrifice any credibility they have ever had in order to get a dig in, you may misunderstand the reason for it. I think she was wrong in her assessment of the phrase, but she is not wrong to feel very unfairly maligned. Equating the unfair malalignment of her character to racism was unfortunate, but only because it gives the right something to latch onto, rather than debating on the merits.
Was james carney telling people not to dare question people in the administration?
You think cautioning against inflaming Muslims around the world while we have American troops currently fighting in Muslim majority countries is the same thing as telling fellow American citizens that they are not to say anything critical of America during a football game is the same thing?
Nonsense. Very poor attempt at a very predictable gotcha. On the one hand we have a President saying that we should think about our actions so that we do not unnecessarily endanger soldiers that are currently in harms way, and on the other hand we have a President telling American citizens that they should shut up because he just doesn’t want to hear what they have to say, while deliberately misrepresenting what they are actually saying. I cannot fathom how you can equate these two things.
If that were happen, I would not “ask [you] to point to the part of the constitution that forbids that”, but thanks for the uncharitable characterization anyways.
I see a huge chasm between the press secretary saying “If you want to get into a debate with a four-star Marine general, I think that is something highly inappropriate” and ‘sending in marshals to shut down the media outlets that he doesn’t like’. If it’s the former, it’s going to mostly get a shrug from me, just like Obama telling people they shouldn’t burn the Koran or publish caricatures of Mohammed probably got a shrug from you. If it’s the latter, I’ll join you in opposition.
Do you think “telling fellow American citizens that they are not to say anything critical of America during a football game” is an accurate description of what Trump said? If you were to rate that post on a scale of 1-10, with 10 being “perfectly honest” and 1 being “Trumpian deception”, what score would you give yourself?
Trump has already threatened NBC’s license though. Not that the threat makes much sense, or that he could actually do anything like that, but still he is definitely having these kinds of anti-freedom of the press thoughts. If he could he would. Do you deny that?
Also, once again:
Obama admin: Lets try not to do things that could put our soldiers in unnecessary danger
Trump admin: Nobody should question what we say, and citizens that protest on topics we disagree with should lose their jobs and also they hate the troops and are ingrates.
The fact that you see these as equivalent tells me we don’t have a lot of hope in this country of ever seeing eye to eye on anything.
No, and neither was Sarah Huckabee Sanders. I think it was a perfect example of “the chief executive picking and choosing what protests are appropriate.”
Several posters here, yourself included, are transforming “I think that is something highly inappropriate” into ridiculous caricatures like ‘not to dare question people in the administration’ or ‘nobody should question what we say’. ‘Mental gymnastics’ is the phrase I think we would typically use to describe that.
Really? Another gotcha? This is not a productive way to debate. I haven’t seen a single answer from you to any question I’ve posed, just gotchas. This is not a dishonest statement.
He said they should be fired for protesting police brutality and inequality in America. He called them sons of bitches. Do you think he was saying he was fine with them being critical of America during the anthem and that they should feel free to proceed?
I’m not really interested in this gotcha style debate
Really? Less than an hour ago you asked me for it:
Why don’t you let me know if / how you’d like to proceed from here. Shall we call it a day and you can show yourself out? Do you want to try to have a sincere discussion about your concerns about the President and the indications you’ve seen that he’s not very committed to the free speech ideals that are a bedrock of the country? Do you want to rant and use more hyperbole? What would you prefer?
No, I was actually thinking that it’d be D’anconia that asked for the cite, not you. But, yeah, I do think, that should it come to pass, you’d probably find a way to defend it.
And, I have yet to have seen a constitutional check on the executive’s power to suppress free speech, so I don’t think that, if he were to do so, it would be against the constitution either.
I get that the first gets only a shrug from you. Is this generalized advice? Is this advice that could prevent inflaming demographics who may pull off a terrorist attack or use it as PR to redouble their efforts against our military?
It’s as if you equate your mother telling you, “Don’t touch the hot stove, you might get hurt”, with your father telling you, “Don’t you dare question me.” with the implication that there would be consequences for doing so. And, your characterization of my reaction to the admin’s reaction to the charlie hebdo attack is incorrect. While I didn’t feel that he was crossing lines in telling people to not dare question those in his administration, as Sanders did, I did feel that that was actually a bit far for the president to go, in telling people how they should or should not express themselves, even if it is reasonably practical advice.
If trump decides to shut down the voices that oppose him, I really do hope that you would join me in opposing that, but to be quite honest, I am sure that there would be some hook of a justification that allows you to find a way to at least not condemn, but maybe even support, such actions. He’s not going to just do it tomorrow, but with a bit of a lead up. He’s been laying the groundwork for discrediting the media since he started running. I am positive that his die hard supporters would cheer if he took over CNN and MSNBC. You know it would only be for a little while, during this national emergency, and when they come back on the air, they will no longer be spouting their lies about our great and dear leader.
It is hard to make a numerical calculation, but a relative one is easier. I would rate airbeck’s statement as exactly as honest as your statement of “the President recently suggested it was inappropriate for NFL players to kneel during the Anthem?”
And when he says things are inappropriate, he thinks they should be fired, have their license pulled, or have their tax status looked into. The chief executive should not be picking and choosing what protests are appropriate. That’s the whole point. The charlie hebdo thing wasn’t really a protest, and didn’t occur on US soil, so it’s really a bit of a stretch to make whatever point you are going for.
I don’t see that as a stretch. What do you think that “highly inappropriate” means? It means don’t do that!
You tell me, what do you think that “highly inappropriate means.” If someone who was highly influential told you that something that you were doing was highly inappropriate, would you stop doing it? Would you encourage others to stop doing it? Would you at least wonder what the appropriate consequences for doing something so highly inappropriate would be?
If you feel that that is a stretch, then I do seriously doubt that you would be on my side if the admin actually went after the press and shut down the voices that it didn’t like. You would find some way of justifying it, just as you justify the white house spokesperson chastising the press for doing their constitutionally protected duties. Mental gymnastics, indeed.
I was being facetious. It was sarcasm because I knew it was coming, you telegraphed it pretty obviously. You interpreted that as me wanting it? I’m beginning to see why we will not be able to see eye to eye on anything. Reality looks different to you. I don’t see a way to bridge that.
I thought it would be nice to participate in an actual civilized debate where we both answer each other’s questions and make an honest attempt to understand where each other are coming from. I guess you don’t want that though. Funny that you accuse me of ranting right in the middle of … whatever this is. I don’t recall any rant that I posted in this thread so far, but I would certainly characterize this paragraph as beneath Great Debate standards.
No, I am not making that claim. I’m saying that whatever she might say, it does not rise to the level of a constitutional “violation”.
Oh, good. Then it’s a good thing that no one made that claim.
Thank you for your input!